Why did Paul suggest that people should not marry?

[Night FM]

Paul mentioned that hardship could come from marriage, and recommended that people not marry unless they felt they had to (and most likely, this is the origin of the requirement of priesthood celebacy in the Catholic Church). My thoughts are that he recommended this because he was aware of dysfunctional and abusive relationships being a reality, as well as the dysfunctions caused by poorly-planned childbirth, particularily in a day and age where most people lived in comparative poverty and deaths in childbirth were likely a reality.

I'd argue that this also renders the teachings of many religious sects heretical as far as the Bible is concerned, such as the Catholic Church treating marriage as a Sacrament, when in reality, the Bible states that it is something to be avoided unless a person feels they must.

Edited October 12 by Night FM

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, Night FM said:

My thoughts are that he recommended this because he was aware of dysfunctional and abusive relationships being a reality, as well as the dysfunctions caused by poorly-planned childbirth,

I'm sorry if you were abused as a child, whatever form it took. It has certainly left some scars. Do you think your god encouraged Paul to discourage marriage for these reasons?

[exchemist]

16 hours ago, Night FM said:

Paul mentioned that hardship could come from marriage, and recommended that people not marry unless they felt they had to (and most likely, this is the origin of the requirement of priesthood celebacy in the Catholic Church). My thoughts are that he recommended this because he was aware of dysfunctional and abusive relationships being a reality, as well as the dysfunctions caused by poorly-planned childbirth, particularily in a day and age where most people lived in comparative poverty and deaths in childbirth were likely a reality.

I'd argue that this also renders the teachings of many religious sects heretical as far as the Bible is concerned, such as the Catholic Church treating marriage as a Sacrament, when in reality, the Bible states that it is something to be avoided unless a person feels they must.

In my view, St. Paul has a lot to answer for, when it comes to the historically twisted attitude of much of Christianity towards sexual relations. It is significant, I think, that Christ himself had practically nothing to say on the subject.  But in the Old Testament you get a very different picture from that painted by St. Paul. , for example the rather beautiful story about Adam's rib in Genesis 2:23-14 :-

"This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh! She is to be called Woman, because she was taken from Man.

This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife and they become one flesh."  

What a poetic and non-judgemental way to describe the primal urge for sex. 

To be fair to St. Paul, he was clearly an advocate of asceticism, which is by no means unique to Christianity. The practice of abstinence and the control of carnal appetites by the intellect, in order to achieve a higher state of spirituality, is practised in many religions.  Even St. Paul acknowledges it is not for everyone. 

 

(By the way, some of your threads seem to betray a rather unhealthy attitude towards sexuality, for instance, besides this one,  the one in which you are preoccupied with incels  and the one about the roles of the sexes in society. I confess I am starting to find this a bit creepy.) 

Edited October 12 by exchemist

[Peterkin]

16 hours ago, Night FM said:

Paul mentioned that hardship could come from marriage, and recommended that people not marry unless they felt they had to (and most likely, this is the origin of the requirement of priesthood celebacy in the Catholic Church).

Poor Saul/Paul was a deeply troubled man. He disapproved of sex, and had a low tolerance of women. It's been argued persuasively that he was homosexual, but the biblical condemnation forced him to sublimate his urges into a celibate religiosity. Hence the seriously conflicted history of the Catholic priesthood. 

And it was that same terrible influence which caused his personal correspondence to be included in the Bible, where it has no business, given that he was 50 years too late even to watch Jesus die, never mind hear him preach.

Edited October 12 by Peterkin

[MigL]

16 hours ago, Night FM said:

most likely, this is the origin of the requirement of priesthood celebacy in the Catholic Church

No.
Priests, bishops, and even  39 Popes, used to be able to marry until the late Middle  Ages.

[Night FM]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Poor Saul/Paul was a deeply troubled man. He disapproved of sex, and had a low tolerance of women. It's been argued persuasively that he was homosexual, but the biblical condemnation forced him to sublimate his urges into a celibate religiosity. Hence the seriously conflicted history of the Catholic priesthood. 

And it was that same terrible influence which caused his personal correspondence to be included in the Bible, where it has no business, given that he was 50 years too late even to watch Jesus die, never mind hear him preach.

 

Paul's views on women were relatively progressive during a day and age when women's rights weren't well-recognized.

 ²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

As far as him being homosexual, anyone can speculate. Some speculate that Jesus and John were homosexual, but I don't read into that seriously.

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

In my view, St. Paul has a lot to answer for, when it comes to the historically twisted attitude of much of Christianity towards sexual relations. It is significant, I think, that Christ himself had practically nothing to say on the subject.  But in the Old Testament you get a very different picture from that painted by St. Paul. , for example the rather beautiful story about Adam's rib in Genesis 2:23-14 :-

"This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh! She is to be called Woman, because she was taken from Man.

This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife and they become one flesh."  

What a poetic and non-judgemental way to describe the primal urge for sex. 

To be fair to St. Paul, he was clearly an advocate of asceticism, which is by no means unique to Christianity. The practice of abstinence and the control of carnal appetites by the intellect, in order to achieve a higher state of spirituality, is practised in many religions.  Even St. Paul acknowledges it is not for everyone. 

 

(By the way, some of your threads seem to betray a rather unhealthy attitude towards sexuality, for instance, besides this one,  the one in which you are preoccupied with incels  and the one about the roles of the sexes in society. I confess I am starting to find this a bit creepy.) 

From what I can tell, the average person's attitude toward sex isn't particularly "healthy", so even discerning what a healthy view is to begin with is very subjective and not an easy task.

I'm not certain that Paul was an ascetic, since simply choosing not to marry by itself wouldn't qualify a person as an ascetic, and many people decide not to marry for a variety of personal reasons.

Edited October 12 by Night FM

[Peterkin]

21 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I'm not certain that Paul was an ascetic

When you spend most of your adult life in prison, the choices are limited.

[exchemist]

44 minutes ago, Night FM said:

 

Paul's views on women were relatively progressive during a day and age when women's rights weren't well-recognized.

 ²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

As far as him being homosexual, anyone can speculate. Some speculate that Jesus and John were homosexual, but I don't read into that seriously.

From what I can tell, the average person's attitude toward sex isn't particularly "healthy", so even discerning what a healthy view is to begin with is very subjective and not an easy task.

I'm not certain that Paul was an ascetic, since simply choosing not to marry by itself wouldn't qualify a person as an ascetic, and many people decide not to marry for a variety of personal reasons.

I did not say St. Paul was an ascetic. Read more carefully. I said he was an advocate of asceticism. I think that is pretty hard to dispute when you read his epistles. It's not just marriage. 

[MigL]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I think, that Christ himself had practically nothing to say on the subject.

Before any analysis of what Jesus Christ had to say on the subject, you would need to first ascertain His existence.
No easy task, I assure you.

There is speculation that the Christ was merely an amalgam of political dissenters, real or made up, who protested the Roman occupation and taxation of Judea. The 'Christ' was a means to start a movement to oppose that occupation, and it seems to have worked reasonably well albeit slowly.
All we have on Jesus Christ are a 'posthumous' collection of writings, a few of which claim to have been written while He was still 'alive'; by propogandists, not historians, so even if you could find any writings about Jesus' views on sex, how would you be sure they were His own ?

Edited October 12 by MigL

[Peterkin]

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

Before any analysis of what Jesus Christ had to say on the subject, you would need to first ascertain His existence.

He exists in the story that pervades all of Western culture. It doesn't matter whether there was one special man who performed all those actions attributed to Jesus, and whether that was his name, or whether some of the accounts are of several itinerant preachers over a spread of years, or how many of them were put to death for blasphemy or inciting to riot. All that matters is the narrative.

Paul is not part of that narrative; he merely hijacked the nascent cult and replanted it in Rome, imposing his own rules. 

The Jewish Revolts were not influenced by Christianity - the Christians in Jerusalem, a small minority, just got caught up in Jewish rage at the corruption and mismanagement of Roman administrators.  

Edited October 12 by Peterkin

[Night FM]

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Poor Saul/Paul was a deeply troubled man. He disapproved of sex, and had a low tolerance of women. It's been argued persuasively that he was homosexual, but the biblical condemnation forced him to sublimate his urges into a celibate religiosity.

On that, the reality is that everyone "sublimates their impulses" to some degree or another simply to live in civilization. Simple things such as not cheating on your spouse or not shooting someone in an act of road rage require some degree of impulse control. If people didn't, then we'd presumably live like animals or savages and have no modern civilization to speak of. This isn't even a specifically "religious" concept, and seems to be Freudian as well, so it's somewhat commonsensical, even if people take it for granted. (e.x. A lot of people wouldn't imagine "themselves" capable of acts of aggression, but in the right circumstances, such as a drunk person starting a fight at a bar, it can occur).

So I think Paul's teachings were relevant to how people should live if they wanted to avoid destructive lifestyle choices such as violence, unplanned pregnancies, alcoholism, and so on.

Edited October 12 by Night FM

[Trurl]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I think this verse is talking about the differences of people. Instead of different heritages and sexes everyone belongs to Jesus. I don’t read it as Paul being homosexual, but homosexuals are part too.

For marriage it is one flesh. Like the U2 song 2 hearts beat as one.

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, Night FM said:

So I think Paul's teachings were relevant to how people should live if they wanted to avoid destructive lifestyle choices such as violence, unplanned pregnancies, alcoholism, and so on.

It didn't work out terribly well in the long term. Men kept right on getting drunk, knocking up the servants, beating their wives and children, right through the Christian era. 

 

4 hours ago, Night FM said:

If people didn't, then we'd presumably live like animals or savages and have no modern civilization to speak of.

The 'savages' managed their social relations considerably better than 'civilized' peoples do. So do animals.

[Night FM]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It didn't work out terribly well in the long term. Men kept right on getting drunk, knocking up the servants, beating their wives and children, right through the Christian era. 

 

The 'savages' managed their social relations considerably better than 'civilized' peoples do. So do animals.

But it's not deniable that animals engage in behaviors which would be barbaric if humans engaged in them. Likewise, lower socioeconomic levels exist where acts such as murder and rape are tolerated (e.x. Mexican drug cartels).

[exchemist]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Before any analysis of what Jesus Christ had to say on the subject, you would need to first ascertain His existence.
No easy task, I assure you.

There is speculation that the Christ was merely an amalgam of political dissenters, real or made up, who protested the Roman occupation and taxation of Judea. The 'Christ' was a means to start a movement to oppose that occupation, and it seems to have worked reasonably well albeit slowly.
All we have on Jesus Christ are a 'posthumous' collection of writings, a few of which claim to have been written while He was still 'alive'; by propogandists, not historians, so even if you could find any writings about Jesus' views on sex, how would you be sure they were His own ?

Well obviously I am talking about the teaching of Christ as the figure represented in the gospels. One can do that without getting sidetracked into the quite separate question of evidence for and against Jesus as a historical person. This thread is about a question of Christian teaching. Let's not hijack the discussion. 

Edited October 13 by exchemist

[Peterkin]

12 hours ago, Night FM said:

But it's not deniable that animals engage in behaviors which would be barbaric if humans engaged in them.

Oh really? What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?

12 hours ago, Night FM said:

Likewise, lower socioeconomic levels exist where acts such as murder and rape are tolerated (e.x. Mexican drug cartels).

Neither pre-civilized humans nor other animals engage in torture and rape for profit. By 'tolerated', do you mean that it's not against the law? Yes, this is rumoured to be true among the aristocracies of some contemporary nations, and certainly true historically. If you mean that the practice of human sex and organ trafficking is carried on in wealthy nation where it's against the law and the traffickers always have customers - so it's obviously more than tolerated, it's positively welcomed - by a segment of the higher socioeconomic elements. If you mean, within the culture of outlaw groups, yes, that is also true. The lectures of the sainted Paul did nothing whatever to curtail this human proclivity.

[Night FM]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Oh really? What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?

Sexually aggressive behaviors which would be considered rape if humans did them exist in the animal kingdom, as one example. (Unless you have evidence that a given species punishes such behavior when it occurs).

https://www.jstor.org/stable/29762596

There are plenty of other examples, such as Black Widow spiders eating their mates after intercourse, and this behavior seems to be a norm for said species, while if humans engaged in it it would be punished by law.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Neither pre-civilized humans nor other animals engage in torture and rape for profit. By 'tolerated', do you mean that it's not against the law? Yes, this is rumoured to be true among the aristocracies of some contemporary nations, and certainly true historically. If you mean that the practice of human sex and organ trafficking is carried on in wealthy nation where it's against the law and the traffickers always have customers - so it's obviously more than tolerated, it's positively welcomed - by a segment of the higher socioeconomic elements. If you mean, within the culture of outlaw groups, yes, that is also true. The lectures of the sainted Paul did nothing whatever to curtail this human proclivity.

Well, that's assuming that people don't adhere to the principles he was trying to convey.

Edited October 13 by Night FM

[MigL]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

Black Widow spiders eating their mates after intercourse

Human males provide sustenance for their mates, and offspring, by a lifetime of working.
The male Black Widow  gets it over with right away, by providing only one meal.
Which is more 'barbaric' ?

( dumb questions beget dumb answers )

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

Sexually aggressive behaviors which would be considered rape if humans did them exist in the animal kingdom, as one example. (Unless you have evidence that a given species punishes such behavior when it occurs).

And rape exists in humans.

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/29762596

There are plenty of other examples, such as Black Widow spiders eating their mates after intercourse, and this behavior seems to be a norm for said species, while if humans engaged in it it would be punished by law.

Human women sometimes kill their husbands.

Being punished by law is irrelevant to the point. The question was “What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?”

(and the part about eating their mates is an exaggeration. It happens in one species of black widow

https://www.burkemuseum.org/collections-and-research/biology/arachnology-and-entomology/spider-myths/myth-black-widows-eat)

[Night FM]

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

Human males provide sustenance for their mates, and offspring, by a lifetime of working.

This isn't the 1950s. Women regularly do work in and outside of the home.

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

The male Black Widow  gets it over with right away, by providing only one meal.
Which is more 'barbaric' ?

( dumb questions beget dumb answers )

This sounds like something an incel would say. The black widow eating their mate is, naturally, more barbaric, and would be punished by law. if a human did it. Voluntarily working at a job you hate to provide for a mate and children you don't love is one's (poor) choice.

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

And rape exists in humans.

Rape isn't considered a normal mating behavior in humans and is penalized by law.

Presumably, in some animal species, sexual aggression is considered a normal mating behavior and isn't penalied.

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Human women sometimes kill their husbands.

Likewise, women killing their husbands isn't a normal social behavior among humans, and is penalized by law.

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Being punished by law is irrelevant to the point. The question was “What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?”

No, it's totally to the point. People, under normal, civilized circumstances don't do these things as a matter of ordinary life. While for species of animals, behaviors such as these are presumably a normal, routine part of how they live and breed.

Edited October 13 by Night FM

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, Night FM said:

Sexually aggressive behaviors which would be considered rape if humans did them exist in the animal kingdom,

Are you claiming that rape is unknown in christian civilizations? That was the question: What savageries don't humans commit because of St. Paul? 

4 hours ago, Night FM said:

Well, that's assuming that people don't adhere to the principles he was trying to convey.

Precisely! They don't an never have. If he was trying to fix mankind, he failed. Utterly.

54 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The black widow eating their mate is, naturally, more barbaric, and would be punished by law. if a human did it.

Lots of behaviours are punished by law when humans do it. Like not covering their face, or going to school, or a smoking a joint, or driving while Black.... Humans make good laws and bad laws, do good deeds and heinous ones. Nothing Paul said or did prevent humans being savage, civilized, decent and brutal.

[NobelPrizeLaureate]

On 10/12/2024 at 6:02 AM, Night FM said:

Why did Paul say not to marry?

Many reasons....

1. Being a preist he could no longer enjoy Roman Harems, and the thorn in the flesh was his envy at people who did, like he wanted to stop everybody else from indulging in the vice of sex, also. 

2.From another perspective maybe he was in the pay of Caeser, like it was part of a Roman mission to stop Jews overpopulating like Hitler

etc etc

 

 

Edited October 14 by NobelPrizeLaureate

[Night FM]

37 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Are you claiming that rape is unknown in christian civilizations? That was the question: What savageries don't humans commit because of St. Paul? 

Precisely! They don't an never have. If he was trying to fix mankind, he failed. Utterly.

What do you mean "they"? One person doesn't necessarily speak for another.

37 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Lots of behaviours are punished by law when humans do it. Like not covering their face, or going to school, or a smoking a joint, or driving while Black.... Humans make good laws and bad laws, do good deeds and heinous ones. Nothing Paul said or did prevent humans being savage, civilized, decent and brutal.

Again, that depends on how well people follow it. Not everyone falls it or fails to follow it to the same degree.

20 minutes ago, NobelPrizeLaureate said:

Many reasons....

1. Being a preist he could no longer enjoy Roman Harems, and the thorn in the flesh was his envy at people who did, like he wanted to stop everybody else from indulging in the vice of sex, also. He was that kind of person, a Roman centurion, very nasty chappie. 

That's a rather silly notion. Bertrand Russell mentioned that both modesty and jealousy exist in human cultures. You're assuming that the latter is necessarily the former. Just as Paul never tried to "stop" people from enjoying sex, but merely recommended that it may be preferable not to marry unless you felt that you had to. And obviously there are a lot of factors at play in a marital relationship that go beyond a couple merely being able to "enjoy sex" in a vacuum without repercussions.

No sane person things the purpose of life is solely to enjoy harems. If everyone did, then we never would have evolved from the culture of cavemen, since sex was more than readily available, but lower on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If anything, Paul saw that a meaningful life requires prioritizing higher callings over purely materialistic, instantly-gratuitous pleasures, and that society likely benefits as a result of this.

20 minutes ago, NobelPrizeLaureate said:

2.From another perspective maybe he was in the pay of Caeser, like it was part of a Roman mission to stop Jews overpopulating like Hitler

etc etc

That just sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Edited October 14 by Night FM

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

This isn't the 1950s. Women regularly do work in and outside of the home.

My reply wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

This sounds like something an incel would say.

I'm not incel.
Ask yo mama.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

This isn't the 1950s. Women regularly do work in and outside of the home.

This sounds like something an incel would say. The black widow eating their mate is, naturally, more barbaric, and would be punished by law. if a human did it. Voluntarily working at a job you hate to provide for a mate and children you don't love is one's (poor) choice.

Rape isn't considered a normal mating behavior in humans and is penalized by law.

Presumably, in some animal species, sexual aggression is considered a normal mating behavior and isn't penalied.

Likewise, women killing their husbands isn't a normal social behavior among humans, and is penalized by law.

No, it's totally to the point. People, under normal, civilized circumstances don't do these things as a matter of ordinary life. While for species of animals, behaviors such as these are presumably a normal, routine part of how they live and breed.

“Normal” wasn’t part of this. The question was “What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?”

Appending “normal” to this is a straw man (in case you’re not sure: that’s not something you should be doing)